perceptions of transformational leadership and job ...yoksis.bilkent.edu.tr/pdf/files/12457.pdf ·...

Journal of Management & Organization, page 1 of 27© 2017 Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Managementdoi:10.1017/jmo.2016.59

Perceptions of transformational leadership and job satisfaction: The roles ofpersonality traits and psychological empowerment§

CEREN AYDOGMUS,* SELIN METIN CAMGOZ,** AZIZE ERGENELI** AND OZGE TAYFUR EKMEKCI**

AbstractThrough two studies, this paper investigates the moderating effects of personality traits(i.e., extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness and neuroticism) and the mediating effect ofpsychological empowerment on the relationship between perceived transformational leadership andjob satisfaction. Study 1 searches whether personality traits moderate the effects of perceivedtransformational leadership on followers’ job satisfaction. Using a sample of 221 R&D employeesemployed by information technology organizations, the results of Study 1 indicate that the moreconscientious the employee, the stronger the relationship between perceived transformationalleadership and job satisfaction. Study 2 explores whether psychological empowerment mediates theeffects of perceived transformational leadership on followers’ job satisfaction. Based on data from348 academics, the results support the mediating role of psychological empowerment on jobsatisfaction, in that when employees perceive their leader as transformational they feel morepsychologically empowered, which in turn increases job satisfaction levels. Implications for futureresearch and practice are discussed.

Keywords: perceived transformational leadership, personality traits, psychologicalempowerment, job satisfaction

Received 1 February 2016. Accepted 6 November 2016

Today’s dynamic work environment brought about by economic, technological and demographicchanges affecting the magnitude of employee job satisfaction. It has been well documented thathighly satisfied employees are more likely to be committed to their organization (Cooper-Hakim &Viswesvaran, 2005), have higher levels of job performance (Judge, Scott, & Ilies, 2006) and lowerlevels of turnover (Hulin & Judge, 2003). The accumulating evidence about the role of job satisfactionon various organizational outcomes triggered the studies investigating its predictors. Although jobsatisfaction was found to be affected by situational factors, it was also found to be shaped by individual

* Faculty of Business Administration, Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey** Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Science, Hacettepe University,

Ankara, Turkey

Corresponding author: [email protected]

§ This manuscript is an original work that has not been submitted to nor published anywhere else. This study probes theunderlying mechanism and the processes of how followers’ perceptions of transformational leadership influence jobsatisfaction, with a focus on followers’ personality traits and psychological empowerment with two different studies. Withthis aim, we provide follower-based perspective on leadership issues on management and organizations of benefit toscholars, Human Resource practitioners and managers.

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION 1

http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2016.59Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. Hacettepe Universitesi, on 03 Jan 2017 at 11:48:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

mailto:[email protected]:/www.cambridge.org/core/termshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2016.59http:/www.cambridge.org/core

factors such as dispositions (Templer, 2012) and perceptions. Among these individual factors,followers’ perceptions of transformational leadership (Cicero & Pierro, 2007) and followers’ personalitytraits (Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002; Hsieh, 2013) have arisen as important predictors.Transformational leadership is most commonly defined as a set of behaviours, which transforms

followers’ needs by satisfying self-actualization needs and push their own and employers’ expectationsto higher levels (Bass & Avolio, 1994). Transformational is based on the premise that such leadershipencourages employee development and increases followers’ motivation levels and morale(Burns, 1978). The research on transformational leadership has been predominantly leader centred, yetscholars have recently realized that followers remain an unexplored source of variance in the leadershipprocess. Thereby, researchers have begun to take a more follower-centred perspective, emphasizing therole of followers in an interactive leadership process (Gardner & Avolio, 1998; Ozaralli, 2003;Hetland, Sandal, & Johnsen, 2008; Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009; Braun, Peus, Weisweiler, & Frey,2013; Qu, Janssen, & Shi, 2015). In contrast to the leader-centred perspective, scholars of thefollower-centred perspective argue that becoming and remaining an effective leader does not onlydepend on the leader’s actual behaviour, but also on followers’ attributions, perceptions andcharacteristics.Accumulating evidence confirms the direct relationship between employees’ transformational

leadership perceptions regarding their supervisors and job satisfaction (Bass, 1999; Krishnan, 2012),however, studies on the moderating effects between perceived transformational leadership and jobsatisfaction are relatively rare and mostly neglect individual differences.The present research aims to examine the processes by which followers’ perceptions of their leaders

as more transformational precipitate their influence on job satisfaction. The purpose of this article is toextend the association between perceived transformational leadership and job satisfaction by adding tothe body of work on the follower-centred leadership perspective. With this aim, Study 1 investigatesthe moderating effects of four personality traits (extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness andneuroticism) on the relationship between perceived transformational leadership and job satisfaction.Specifically, we assume that the effect of perceived transformational leadership on job satisfaction variesas a function of followers’ personality traits. We posit that follower’s perceptions of their leaders astransformational might interact with follower’s personality traits, and that this interaction contributespositively or negatively to job satisfaction. Understanding the moderating effects of followers’ per-sonality traits associated with their transformational leadership perceptions may help to betterunderstand the dispositional predictors of job satisfaction. Clearly, these findings may have importantorganizational implications, including for selection and human resources training and development.Through focussing on followers, in Study 2, we examine the underlying mechanism and processes of

how their perceptions of transformational leadership influence job satisfaction, with a focus on psy-chological empowerment. This concept is defined as the ‘intrinsic task motivation manifested incognitions that reflect an individual’s active orientation to his or her work role’ (Spreitzer, 1995: 1443).Several studies report that transformational leaders empower their followers (Jung & Sosik, 2002; Joo& Lim, 2013; Dust, Resick, & Mawritz, 2014; Pai & Krishnan, 2015). While research on perceivedtransformational leadership with job satisfaction has flourished, the effects of empowerment amongfollowers have been virtually ignored. In line with the transformational leadership theory emphasizingthe role of empowerment as a central mechanism (Avolio, Zhu, Koh, & Bhatia, 2004) we explorepsychological empowerment as the mediating variable in perceived transformational leadership and jobsatisfaction linkage. We argue that followers’ perceptions of their leaders as transformational affect theirpsychological empowerment levels and thus in turn contribute to their job satisfaction.Before discussing the theoretical framework for the hypotheses of the study, it seems necessary to

give information about the cultural values and business context in Turkey, given the fact that suchinformation would provide more complete picture regarding the transformational leadership and its

Ceren Aydogmus, Selin Metin Camgoz, Azize Ergenelı and Ozge Tayfur Ekmekci

2 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION


http:/www.cambridge.org/core/termshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2016.59http:/www.cambridge.org/core

effects in organizations. Therefore, in the preceding sections, first information about Turkish cultureand business environment; then theoretical rationale for hypotheses will be discussed.

CULTURAL VALUES AND BUSINESS CONTEXT IN TURKEY

Turkish culture is argued to be a blend of ‘Western’ and ‘Eastern’ values (Aycan, 2001), probably due toTurkey’s historical ties and geographic location connecting Asia and Europe. In early studies, Turkishculture was found to have high power distance and collectivistic tendencies (Hofstede, 1980), which arepeculiar to Eastern societies and their value systems. However, Turkish culture has been transformed likemany other societies. Autonomy and self-determination have aroused as basic values in Turkish families(Kagitcibasi, 1996), which cause changes in power distance and collectivist tendencies. In fact, recentstudies show that Turkey has become less collectivistic (Goregenli, 1997; Aycan et al., 2000; Fikret-Pasa,Kabasakal, & Bodur, 2001) and less hierarchical (Aycan et al., 2000) compared with past. The trans-formation in the societal values has reflected itself in Turkish organizations as well. After the adoption ofliberal economy in 1980s, the organization structures in Turkey have become less hierarchical (Aycanet al., 2000) with less uncertainty avoiding (Kabasakal & Bodur, 1998).Despite the adoption of some Western values, still Turkish societal and organizational culture are

characterized with collectivism and power distance, which shape leader–follower relations to a largeextent. Studies investigating the leadership styles in Turkey reported that Turkish managers showparental consideration towards their subordinates (e.g., Aycan & Fikret-Pasa, 2003), and exhibit nur-turing and authoritarian behaviours at the same time. In this paternalistic leadership style, supervisorsassume the role of a parent and consider it an obligation to provide support and protection to thoseunder their care (Aycan and Kanungo, 2000). Subordinates, in turn, reciprocate such care, support andprotection of the paternal authority by showing loyalty, trust and respect to their supervisors. Turkishemployees/subordinates are looking for leaders who are basically relationship oriented (i.e., showingindividualized attention to followers), display concern with the private problems of followers and createan intimate atmosphere in the organization (Fikret-Pasa, Kabasakal, & Bodur, 2001). Besides pater-nalistic leadership, these behaviours are compatible with the dimensions of transformational leadership.In fact, recent studies reported that transformational leadership is the most preferred leadership style inTurkey (Aycan & Fikret-Pasa, 2003; Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009; Gumusluoglu, Karakitapoğlu-Aygün,& Hirst, 2013). As in other countries, much of the interest has been devoted to investigate the prevalentand preferred leadership styles in Turkey; however, less attention has been directed to the investigation ofhow these leadership styles affect employee’s perceptions such as perceived empowerment and jobsatisfaction. This study could provide insights about how transformational leadership influences theperceived empowerment and job satisfaction in Turkey, which is argued to differ from both Western andEastern societies in terms of some societal values.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT

Transformational leadership and job satisfaction

Job satisfaction is the pleasurable emotional state that results from the appraisal of one’s job as achievingor facilitating one’s job values (Locke, 1969). It is the evaluation of an individual’s own work in terms ofthe context and content of the work. Among many determinants of job satisfaction, an employee’s directmanager or leader has the greatest influence on whether an employee finds his or her job satisfying or not(Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999; Mardanov, Heischmidt, & Henson, 2008). Among various leadershipstyles, recent work suggests that transformational leadership (Bass, 1985) has a more favourable impacton employee job satisfaction compared with other leadership approaches (Awamleh & Gardner, 1999;

Perceived transformational leadership, job satisfaction




Bogler, 2001; Cicero & Pierro, 2007; Top, Tarcan, Tekingündüz, & Hikmet, 2013; Ghanbari &Eskandari, 2014; Çoğaltay, Yalcin, & Karadağ, 2016). Scholars regard transformational leadership as atool to enhance follower satisfaction by encouraging employee development, interaction and promotingmotivation (Avolio, 1999). Transformational leadership fosters autonomy and encourages challengingwork, thus becoming increasingly important to followers’ job satisfaction (Bass, 1999).Transformational leadership consists of four interrelated behavioural components of idealized

influence: (1) charismatic role modelling, (2) inspirational motivation that articulates an appealingvision, (3) individualized consideration and (4) intellectual stimulation that promotes creativity andinnovation (Bass & Avolio, 1994). The related literature demonstrates that dimensions of transfor-mational leadership have positive effects on job satisfaction (Judge & Bono, 2000; Krishnan, 2012).Particularly, intellectual stimulation leads employees to see their work as more interesting due toincreased self-understanding and growth (Jung & Sosik, 2002). Leader charisma generates loyalty andappreciation from followers (Bass & Avolio, 1994) and inspirational motivation leads employees to feelinvolved in their tasks and understand the vision of the organization (Kerfoot, 2001). Individualizedconsideration involves caring management through personal attention and treatment (Slater, 2003).From these factors, we expect that when a follower perceives his or her leader as more transformational,he or she will feel higher job satisfaction. Therefore

Hypothesis 1: Perceived transformational leadership is positively correlated with job satisfaction.

Moderating roles of followers’ personality traits (Study 1)

Although the relationships between perceived transformational leadership and job satisfaction havebeen clearly demonstrated (Judge & Bono, 2000; Krishnan, 2012), the potential moderating effects ofindividual differences remain largely inconclusive. Some scholars examining individual differences(Monzani, Ripoll, & Silla, 2014) argue that those differences serve as situational moderators fortransformational leadership effectiveness (Wofford, Whittington, & Goodwin, 2001). This argumenthas also been supported by Lord, DeVader, and Alliger (1986), suggesting that cognitive schemascomposed of personality traits are important perceptual constructs that predict leadership perceptions.In this sense, Bass (1999) and Conger and Kanungo (1998) note that transformational leadershipmight be more effective for some followers than for others, thereby suggesting that followercharacteristics could be important moderators on the effects of such leadership on followers’ jobattitudes, including job satisfaction. If followers’ characteristics play an important role in transfor-mational leadership perception, these characteristics should explain the variance of perceivedtransformational leadership in addition to the variance of followers’ job satisfaction. Consistent withother situational approaches to leadership, we presume that followers’ personality traits moderate therelationships between followers’ perceptions of their leaders as transformational and their job satis-faction. In discussing the proposed moderating hypotheses, we utilize and define personality in termsof the Big-Five personality traits excluding openness to experience (i.e., extraversion, conscientiousness,agreeableness and neuroticism) in line with prior studies. The traits are widely recognized and havebeen found to be related to many organizational attitudes and outcomes, including job satisfaction(Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002). However, openness to experience was found to have weakcorrelations with job satisfaction (Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002). DeNeve and Cooper (1998)discovered the effect of openness to experience on job satisfaction was unclear. Nevertheless, there arecontradictory findings about the relationship between followers’ openness and their perceptions fortransformational leadership. Although some findings (Moss & Ngu, 2006) suggest that there is apositive, some identify (Hetland, Sandal, & Johnsen, 2008) no correlation on this relationship.Therefore, openness to experience will not be investigated in this study.





Within the Big-Five personality model, extraversion is associated with being social, assertive,expressive, energetic, talkative and active (Goldberg, 1990). As extraversion correlates with pleasantemotions (Lucas, Diener, Grob, Suh, & Shao, 2000), extraverted individuals experience more positiveaffective reactions compared with introverts (Rusting & Larsen, 1997) when faced with the samepleasant events. Recent research suggests that higher extraversion scores are positively correlated withall components of job satisfaction (Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002). Put differently, employees who arehigh in extraversion perceive their working environment more positively (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996)which in turn generalizes to job satisfaction (Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002).In terms of leadership practices, extraversion might play an important role in shaping individuals’

perceptions of leadership preferences (Keller, 1999). Felfe and Schyns (2006) assert that extraversion inparticular is positively related to the perception and acceptance of transformational leadership, findingthat followers high in extraversion have a tendency to perceive their leaders as more transformationalthan do followers low in extraversion. Similarly, leaders may be more encouraged to activate atransformational style when encountering followers with high levels of social activity and initiative, asthey will perceive their followers as having the appropriate characteristics for such leadership (Dvir &Shamir, 2003). As individuals high in extraversion tend to place more emphasis on transformationalleadership practices, one might presume that the relationship between perceived transformationalleadership and job satisfaction becomes stronger. Thus

Hypothesis 2: Followers’ extraversion moderates the relation between perceived transformationalleadership and job satisfaction such that the effect of the former on the latter will be stronger whenfollowers are high in extraversion.

Conscientiousness involves being responsible, organized, dependable, careful and hardworking.Considerable research proves that none of the Big-Five personality traits except conscientiousnesspredicts global and subscale scores of actual job satisfaction (Winkelmann & Winkelmann, 2008;Furnham, Eracleous, & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2009). Likewise, the findings of meta-analyses aggre-gating over different samples in different countries with different outcome criteria display that con-scientiousness is most likely the best predictor of work-related behaviour (Salgado, 1997). Putdifferently, individuals who are high in conscientiousness are better-performing employees; they receivemore rewards and recognition, which in turn increases their job satisfaction (Templer, 2012).A potential explanation for this finding might be that as conscientious individuals are more likely toreceive higher intrinsic and extrinsic rewards due to their efficient nature that might consequentlyincrease their levels of job satisfaction (Furnham, Eracleous, & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2009).In terms of leadership practices, research shows that the more conscientious the followers, the more

they are recognized and the more they react positively to transformational leadership, leading to higherratings of transformational leadership behaviour (Bono, Hooper, & Yoon, 2012). Leaders may also beencouraged to activate a transformational leadership style while working with high self-esteem andconscientious followers (Dvir & Shamir, 2003). Ehrhart and Klein (2001) find that followers’achievement orientation and high self-esteem, which are the main features of conscientiousness, arepositively related to the preference of a transformational leader. Additionally, it has been defined thatconscientiousness implies a positive attitude towards the work and the leader (Hetland, Sandal, &Johnsen, 2008). Keller (1999) finds that conscientious followers are more likely to notice and recalltransformational leadership behaviours because they view charisma and dedication as ideal leadercharacteristics. Additionally, as conscientious followers are very good performers, leaders mayappreciate them more than other followers and place relatively more importance on their developmentneeds, such as individualized consideration (Hurtz & Donovan, 2000). Consequently, leaders maythink conscientious followers are worth the investment in terms of productivity and may be more likelyto respond to the needs of these followers (Bono, Hooper, & Yoon, 2012). Leaders have a tendency to





activate a transformational style when they work with employees having high levels of responsibility,social activity and self-esteem (Walumbwa, Orwa, Wang, & Lawler, 2005). Hence, as followers high inconscientiousness have a tendency to place more emphasis on transformational leadership practices, wehypothesize that the relationship between perceived transformational leadership and job satisfactionbecomes stronger. Thus

Hypothesis 3: Followers’ conscientiousness moderates the relation between perceived transforma-tional leadership and job satisfaction such that the effect of the former on the latter will be strongerwhen followers are high in conscientiousness.

Agreeableness refers to being friendly, good natured, trusting, cooperative, forgiving and tolerant.McCrae and Costa (1991) identified that agreeable individuals have greater motivation to achieveinterpersonal relationships. As agreeableness involves getting along with others in pleasant and satis-fying relationships, it is positively correlated with job satisfaction (Organ & Lingl, 1995). Tasks can beperceived as more distressing and cause less job satisfaction for followers with low agreeableness(Christiansen, Sliter, & Frost, 2014). Related to leadership practices, agreeableness is found to be astrong predictor of transformational leadership preference (Parmer, Green, Duncan, & Zarate, 2013).Research suggests that followers with high agreeableness perceive their leaders as more transformational(Felfe & Schyns, 2010) and followers low in agreeableness are less open to transformational leadershipbehaviours (Hetland, Sandal, & Johnsen, 2008). Further, Hetland and Sandal (2003) posit thatagreeableness has the strongest correlation to both transformational leadership and job satisfactionbecause it includes warmth. Therefore, we hypothesize that the relationship between perceivedtransformational leadership and job satisfaction will become stronger when followers are high inagreeableness. Thus

Hypothesis 4: Followers’ agreeableness moderates the relation between perceived transformationalleadership and job satisfaction such that the effect of the former on the latter will be stronger whenfollowers are high in agreeableness.

The last personality trait, neuroticism, includes being depressed, anxious, angry, embarrassed,emotional, worried and insecure. It is the strongest and most consistent negative correlate of jobsatisfaction (Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002). Individuals high in neuroticism generally view the worldfrom a negative aspect, and they self-select into situations that foster negative influence. They areemotionally unstable, become easily upset and habitually experience negative emotions. Neuroticemployees therefore have fewer fulfilling and rewarding interactions at work, which might lead them tofeel lower job satisfaction than emotionally stable employees (Connolly & Viswesvaran, 2000). Indeed,research shows that employees high in neuroticism have relatively lower job satisfaction (Spector, 1997;Templer, 2012).Regarding leadership preferences, research also suggests that followers with high neuroticism perceive

their leaders as less transformational (Hetland, Sandal, & Johnsen, 2008; Bodla & Hussain, 2010). Asneuroticism indicates lower self-esteem and higher anxiety, neurotic followers may withdraw whenconfronted with a transformational leader (Felfe & Schyns, 2010). As neurotic employees view theworld from a negative lens, they are not fully aware of the behaviours and attitudes of their superiorstowards them, such as individual consideration and inspirational motivation (McCrae & Costa, 1997).In other words, the more neurotic the follower, the more negative the relationship between perceivedtransformational leadership and job satisfaction. Thus, we hypothesize

Hypothesis 5: Followers’ neuroticism moderates the relation between perceived transformationalleadership and job satisfaction such that the effect of the former on the latter will be weaker whenfollowers are high in neuroticism.





The mediating role of psychological empowerment (Study 2)

Psychological empowerment refers to a set of psychological states that are necessary for individuals tofeel a sense of control in relation to their work. Spreitzer (1995) suggests four cognitionsof psychological empowerment: (1) meaning, the value of work goals judged in relation to an indi-vidual’s own ideas, (2) competence (self-efficacy), an individual’s belief in his or her capability toperform activities with skill, (3) determination, the reflection of autonomy in the initiation andcontinuation of work processes and (4) impact, the degree to which an individual can influencestrategic, administrative or operating work outcomes (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). These fourperceived empowerment cognitions combine additively to create an overall construct of psychologicalempowerment.It is well known that transformational leadership is increasingly encouraged to facilitate job

satisfaction. Although the associations between transformational leadership and job satisfaction havebeen well reported (Awamleh & Gardner, 1999; Bogler, 2001) underlying processes among thoserelationships are inconclusive. As psychological empowerment is argued to be one of the main featuresdistinguishing transformational leadership behaviours from other leadership styles (Kark, Shamir, &Chen, 2003), we believe that it acts as an important psychological mechanism to mediate therelationship between perceived and job satisfaction.Research shows that transformational leadership is positively related to psychological empowerment

(Judge & Bono, 2000; Ozaralli, 2003; Castro, Villegas, & Casillas, 2008) suggesting that psychologicalempowerment involves the delegation of responsibility to followers and the enhancement of theircapacity to think for themselves in producing new and creative ideas (Spreitzer, 1995). Thus, thenature of transformational leadership in developing followers’ self-management and self-developmentskills relates to the notion of follower perceptions of empowerment (Jung, Chow, & Wu, 2003). Inthis regard, one might propose that transformational leadership facets act through psychologicalempowerment in influencing work outcomes (Bass, 1999).Moreover, transformational leaders emphasize the independence and proactivity of their followers,

and favour empowerment strategies rather than control (Dvir & Shamir, 2003). Such leaders empowerfollowers by generating enthusiasm for achieving a goal and by providing meaning (Bass, 1999).In addition, such leaders favour psychological empowerment cognitions by expressing confidence inemployee ability to deliver high performance (Conger, Kanungo, & Menon, 2000). Such inspirationalmotivation enhances followers’ feelings of self-efficacy and perceived competence (Spreitzer, 1995).Transformational leaders use intellectual stimulation to challenge their followers’ imagination andcreativity, which could result in this sense of self-determination (Castro, Villegas, & Casillas, 2008).Numerous studies have concluded that job satisfaction is a consequence of psychological

empowerment, as it is associated with perceptions of control and competence, increased autonomy andworking on an idea that is personally appealing and meaningful (Eylon & Bamberger, 2000).Individualized consideration for followers’ need for achievement and growth can encourage them totake on challenging responsibilities to develop their full potential, thus keeping them on track forcognitive states of empowerment (Avolio et al., 2004). Likewise, empowering followers by providingthem autonomy to manage their work and by increasing its perceived meaning facilitates work-relatedlearning and thereby improves job satisfaction (Bartram & Casimir, 2006). Thus, it is plausible toexpect that when followers perceive their leaders as more transformational, such a perception wouldpositively influence their psychological empowerment, which would result in higher job satisfaction.To summarize, previous research supports (1) links between perceived transformational leadership andjob satisfaction, (2) the association between psychological empowerment and job satisfaction.However, to the authors’ knowledge there has been no research until now exploring whether thisrelationship is mediated through psychological empowerment. It might be that perceived





transformational leadership is primarily related to the individual’s evaluation of empowerment and thatthis strong sense of empowerment might contribute to higher levels of job satisfaction. Therefore

Hypothesis 6: The effects of followers’ perceived transformational leadership on job satisfaction willbe mediated by psychological empowerment.

The conceptual/theoretical framework of the mediating relationships between perceived transfor-mational leadership, psychological empowerment and job satisfaction is summarized in Figure 1.

STUDY 1 METHOD

Participants

The data from Study 1 consists of 221 white-collar employees working in R&D at various informationtechnology companies located at three universities. All companies are small or medium sized, with 20–50employees, and all are engaged in developing new products and improving existing products. Small- andmedium-sized entrepreneurial companies were chosen rather than large ones because the former may bemore innovative due to their greater flexibility and thus employ more growth-oriented employees (Ettlie,1983). Moreover, the reason for choosing the information technology sector is that employees there aremore likely to perform continuous developments and respond to the new skills and demands generatedby a rapidly changing and globalized labour market, in which innovation is inevitable. As transforma-tional leadership is also positively related with innovation in the workplace (Jung, Chow, & Wu, 2003),the aforementioned characteristics also reinforce displaying transformational types of leadership beha-viours and attitudes in the organizations, which in turn makes them suitable environments for both thefeeling of psychological empowerment from the follower side and the development of transformationalleaders from the organizational side. Among the participants, 55% were male and 45% female. Almosthalf had worked with their current manager for up to 3 years at the time of the study. The average jobtenure was 6.8 (SD = 0.91) and the mean age of the participants was 38.6 (SD = 4.12).

Measures

The self-reported survey for Study 1 included measures of transformational leadership, Big-Five per-sonality traits and job satisfaction. The responses to all of the following multi-item scales were averagedto form composite variables.

Study 1:

ExtraversionConscientiousness

NeuroticismAgreeableness

PerceivedTransformational

Leadership

Study 2:PsychologicalEmpowerment

Job Satisfaction

FIGURE 1. PERCEIVED TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND JOB SATISFACTION: MODERATING ROLE OF PERSONALITY TRAITS ANDMEDIATING ROLE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWERMENT





Multifactor Leadership QuestionnaireFollowers’ perceptions of transformational leadership were assessed with 20 items taken from theMultifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Form 5X-Short) (Bass & Avolio, 1995). Participants were askedto rate their supervisor’s leadership behaviours using a 5-point Likert scale format, ranging from1 = ‘not at all,’ to 5 = ‘frequently’. Sample items include the following: ‘display a sense of power andconfidence’ for idealized attribute; ‘consider the moral and ethical consequences of decisions’ foridealized behaviour; ‘talk optimistically about the future’ for inspirational motivation; ‘seek differingperspectives when solving problems’ for intellectual stimulation and ‘spend time teaching and coaching’for individual consideration. In this study, rather than four dimensions, an overall measure of trans-formational leadership was used in all analyses for several reasons. First, the independence of trans-formational leadership dimensions has been a topic of some debate (Tepper & Percy, 1994; Bycio,Hackett, & Allen, 1995; Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999). In the prior studies, high correlations werereported among the four transformational leadership dimensions (Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam,1996). Second, both theoretical (Bass, 1990; Yukl, 1994) and empirical studies (Yammarino,Dubinsky, Comer, & Jolson, 1997) suggest that an overall measure is a valid and reliable approach.The items were translated into Turkish using a collaborative translation technique in order to ensuretheir conceptual equivalence. Two bilingual researchers translated the scale independently and onegraduate psychology student examined which translation better reflected the items’ meanings. Noanalogous items were identified, and as a result, the comparability of the translations was assumed. TheCronbach’s α coefficient was 0.94.

Big-Five Inventory (BFI)The 44-item BFI developed by John, Donahue, and Kentle (1991) was used to assess participants’personality traits. Respondents rated each item on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = ‘disagree strongly,’to 5 = ‘agree strongly’, based on how much each statement described him or her. Sample items are asfollows: ‘is outgoing/ talkative’ for extraversion; ‘perseveres until the task is finished/does a thoroughjob’ for conscientiousness; ‘likes to cooperate with others/is generally trusting’ for agreeableness; and ‘getsnervous easily/worries a lot’ for neuroticism. The Turkish translation and adaptation of the instrumentwas conducted by Sumer, Lajunen, and Ozkan (2005). α coefficients for each of the BFI subscales wereall at reasonable intervals, ranging from 0.72 to 0.86.

Job satisfactionA 20-item short form of the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire designed by Weiss, Dawis, England,and Lofquist (1967) was used to assess employees’ overall job satisfaction. Sample items include ‘theworking conditions’ and ‘the way my boss handles his/her workers’. Each item generated responsesranging from ‘very dissatisfied’ (1) to ‘satisfied’ (5) on a 5-point scale. The Turkish adaptation and thevalidity of the Turkish version of the instrument have been established by Bilgic (1998). Cronbach’s αcoefficient was found to be 0.85.

Procedure

The study questionnaires were administered by one of the researchers in an on-site meeting roomduring regular scheduled working hours. All participants gave consent after being informed that thestudy aimed to investigate several aspects of their work life and that they were assured anonymity andconfidentiality. No incentives were offered. In total, 221 useable questionnaires were returned out of300 distributed ones, a response rate of 73.6%.





Common method bias

As the data were collected from a single source, to diminish common method variance, we (1) useddifferent response anchors for the predictor and outcome variables, (2) manipulated the order of thequestionnaire items and (3) used Harman’s single-factor test. With Harman’s test, we put all the studyvariables into an exploratory factor analysis and then examined the unrotated factor solution todetermine the number of factors that accounted for the variance in the variables (Podsakoff,MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). For the present study, principal component analysis extracted10 factors, with the first factor explaining 28.4% of the variance. This gives confidence that no singlefactor accounted for a majority of the covariance and no general factor was apparent, suggesting thatcommon method variance is not a serious issue in this study (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). To confirmthe result of Harman test, we controlled for the effects of an unmeasured latent methods factorfollowing the suggestion of Podsakoff et al. (2003). This technique involves adding a first-order factorwith all of the measures as indicators to our theoretical model. Although the addition of commonmethod variable improved the model, this improvement was not statistically significant (Δχ2(df = 1,136) = 110.95; p> .05). Besides, when the significance of the structural parameters isexamined both with and without the latent common methods variance factor in the model, all of thestandardized loadings turned out to be significant even after the addition of common method factor.Therefore, in line with Harman’s single factor test, the results of common-factor modelling analysissuggested that common method variance is not a pervasive problem in this study.

STUDY 1 RESULTS

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)

We performed a series of CFA to verify the distinctiveness of the constructs (i.e., study variables) in thisstudy. However, before conducting CFA, we screened the data for accuracy and normality. For nor-mality assumptions, outliers and univariate distributions were scanned for skewness and kurtosis scores,and found to be within reasonable ranges (skewness

Table 1, three-, two- and one-factor models exhibited poorer fit than the seven-factor model. Besides, theAkaike information criterion used to compare alternative models, was found to be smaller in seven-factormodel compared with alternative models. Overall, CFA revealed that the variance among differentvariables was not same, suggesting the existence of discriminant validity.Although it was found to be superior to other models in terms of several fit indices, seven-factor

model did not initially provide a good fit to the data (χ2 [3,390] = 6,475.2; p< .001; χ2/df = 1.94;comparative fit index [CFI] = 0.89; root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.07). Theinspection of standardized factor loadings of the BFI items revealed that three out of 44 (one forextraversion, one for openness to experience and one for neuroticism) were below the criterion of 0.40,and so we decided to delete these items from the model. Additionally, based on modification indices,we determined that the model fit improved substantially (χ2 [3,381] = 6,357.8; p< .001, whereχ2/df = 1.88; CFI = 0.91, and RMSEA = 0.07) if the error covariance terms were added to someitems of job satisfaction (i.e., between job satisfaction items 8 and 10; between items 15 and 16) andperceived transformational leadership (between items 5 and 6). After the aforementioned modifica-tions, standardized factor loadings were examined and all of them found to be significant. We createdthe composite scores of the study variables by taking the average of the items shown to be statisticallyrelated to these study variables in CFA. However, because of the reasons cited in the literature review,we did not calculate composite score for openness to experience construct.

Descriptive statisticsTable 2 lists the means, standard deviations, correlations and Cronbach’s α reliability coefficients for thevariables. The correlations between variables provide initial support for the hypotheses, such that per-ceived transformational leadership is positively correlated with job satisfaction (r = 0.505, p< .01).Among the personality traits, job satisfaction is positively correlated with conscientiousness (r = 0.210,p< .01) and negatively correlated with neuroticism (r = − 0.140, p< .05). As the demographic variablesdid not significantly correlate with the outcome variable of, we did not use them as control variables.

Hypotheses testing for moderating effects of personality traits

For testing the moderating effects of the personality traits on transformational leadership–job satis-faction linkage, we conducted moderated multiple regression analysis with job satisfaction as thedependent variable, perceived transformational leadership as the independent variable and the fourpersonality traits as the moderators. Consistent with the recommendations of Cohen, Cohen, West,and Aiken (2003), we mean centred the independent variable and the moderator variables just beforecomputing the interaction term in order to reduce the multicollinearity problem. In the first step of thehierarchical regression analysis, we entered the independent variable and the moderator to theregression equation, whereas we added the interaction terms to the model in the second step. Table 3provides the hierarchical regression findings where moderation is probed.As evident in Table 3, perceived transformational leadership and personality traits accounted for

30% of the variance in job satisfaction (F(5, 216) = 18.54; p< .001). Among the direct effects, theβ coefficients for transformational leadership (β = 0.351, p< .01), conscientiousness (β = 0.181,p< .05) and neuroticism (β = − 0.135, p< .01) were significant. The second step of the regressionmodel was also significant, and the set of transformational leadership × personality product termsexplained a significant incremental variance in job satisfaction (F(9, 211) = 11.74; p< .001; ΔR2 =0.032). Among the direct effects perceived transformational leadership (β = 0.516, p< .01), con-scientiousness (β = 0.150, p< .05) and neuroticism (β = − 0.150, p< .05) were significant. Thefinding regarding the direct effect of perceived transformational leadership on job satisfactionsupports Hypothesis 1. Among the interaction terms, the term between transformational





TABLE 2. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS, α COEFFICIENTS AND CORRELATIONS AMONG STUDY 1 VARIABLES

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Gender – – −0.062. Age 38.60 4.10 −0.06 –3. Job tenure 6.80 0.90 −0.28* 0.62 –4. Tenure with manager 3.20 0.60 −0.12 0.48** 0.72** –5. PTL 3.61 0.80 0.03 −0.04 −0.10 −0.03 (0.94)6. Extraversion 3.49 0.80 −0.15* 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.08 (0.86)7. Conscientiousness 4.05 0.70 −0.05 −0.05 −0.08 −0.05 0.08 0.23** (0.80)8. Agreeableness 3.49 0.50 0.06 −0.07 −0.08 −0.01 0.13 0.11 0.34** (0.72)9. Neuroticism 2.62 0.70 −0.11 −0.15* 0.05 −0.07 −0.01 −0.19** −0.20** −0.36** (0.80)10. JS 3.76 0.60 0.06 0.07 0.02 0.13 0.51** 0.05 0.21** 0.09 −0.14* (0.85)

Note. N = 221.Gender is coded as 0 = woman, 1 = man.Cronbach’s α coefficients are in parentheses in the diagonal.JS = job satisfaction; PTL = perceived transformational leadership.* p< .05, ** p< .001.

Ceren

Aydogm

us,Selin

Metin

Cam

goz,Azize

Ergenelı

andOzge

Tayfur

Ekm

ekci

12JO

URNALOFMANAGEM

ENT&

ORGANIZATIO

N

http:/ww

w.cam

bridge.org/core/terms. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/jm

o.2016.59D

ownloaded from

http:/ww

w.cam

bridge.org/core. Hacettepe U

niversitesi, on 03 Jan 2017 at 11:48:41, subject to the Cambridge Core term

s of use, available at


leadership × conscientiousness (β = 0.172, p< .05) was statistically significant. This result supportsHypothesis 3, regarding the moderating effect of conscientiousness on the relationship betweentransformational leadership and job satisfaction. However, contrary to the predictions of Hypotheses 2,4 and 5, the moderating effects of neuroticism, extraversion and agreeableness, respectively, on thetransformational leadership–job satisfaction linkage were not supported.In order to illustrate the interaction effect, we plotted the regression of the dependent variable on the

independent variable by taking 1 SD above and 1 SD below the mean of the moderating variable, asCohen et al. (2003) recommend. Figure 2 shows how the relationship between transformationalleadership and job satisfaction varies as a function of the conscientiousness trait. A simple slope for the

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Low TransformationalLeader

High TransformationalLeader

Job

Sati

sfac

tion

Low Conscientiousness High Conscientiousness

FIGURE 2. THE INTERACTIVE INFLUENCE OF PERCEIVED TL AND CONSCIENTIOUSNESS ON JOB SATISFACTION

TABLE 3. HIERARCHICAL REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR PREDICTING JOB SATISFACTION

Predictors β R2 Change in R2 F

Step 1 0.30 – 18, 54**PTL 0.35**Extraversion −0.05Agreeableness 0.07Conscientiousness 0.18**Neuroticism −0.13*

Step 2 0.33 0.03 11, 74**PTL 0.51**Extraversion −0.03Conscientiousness 0.15*Agreeableness 0.05Neuroticism −0.13*PTL×extraversion −0.08PTL× conscientiousness 0.17*PTL×agreeableness −0.05PTL×neuroticism −0.07

Note. N = 221.PTL = perceived transformational leadership.**p< .01, *p< .05.





association between transformational leadership and job satisfaction was also tested for low, moderateand high levels of conscientiousness. Simple slope revealed a positive association for moderate(t = 7.82, p< .00) and high levels of conscientiousness (t = 6.45, p< .00). That is, the form of themoderating effect is consistent with Hypothesis 3, such that the more conscientious the individual, thestronger the relationship between perceived transformational leadership and job satisfaction.

STUDY 2

As noted earlier, Study 2 provides an examination regarding the mediating role of psychologicalempowerment on the relationship between perceived transformational leadership and job satisfaction.In this respect, the study looks beyond the dispositional characteristics investigated in the first studyand explores the underlying processes by which followers’ perceptions of their leaders as more trans-formational precipitate influence on job satisfaction.

Study 2 method

ParticipantsThe participants for Study 2 were 348 academics working in the engineering departments of threeuniversities in Ankara, Turkey. These departments undertake technological projects and allow oppor-tunities for managing knowledge work, displaying innovative and creative behaviours and thus self-improvement, all of which reinforce the relevant factors of transformational leadership and psychologicalempowerment in organizations (Garcia-Morales, Jiménez-Barrionuevo, & Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, 2012).Of the respondents, 216 were male (62.24%) and 131 female (37.8%), with an average age of 37.8

and an organizational tenure of 5.7 years. One participant did not provide gender information.

MeasuresMultifactor Leadership Questionnaire. In accordance with Study 1, we used the same MultifactorLeadership Questionnaire (Form 5X-Short) (Bass & Avolio, 1995) in Study 2. We found theCronbach’s α reliability coefficient of the scale to be 0.93.

Psychological empowerment scale. Followers’ psychological empowerment perceptions were assessedusing Spreitzer’s (1995) psychological empowerment scale. For each of the four psychologicalempowerment components (meaning, competence, self-determination and impact), the scale containsthree items, for a total of 12 items. Sample items are as follows: ‘The work I do is meaningful to me’and ‘I have mastered the skills necessary for my job’. Participants were asked to evaluate each item byproviding five alternatives, scoring from 1 = ‘strongly disagree,’ to 5 = ‘strongly agree’. Higher scoresspecify the perception of being more psychologically empowered. Since the psychological empower-ment dimensions combine to provide a total empowerment score (Spreitzer, 1995), we used an overallmeasure of psychological empowerment in our analyses. The Turkish adaptation of the instrument wasborrowed from Ergeneli, Saglam Ari, and Metin (2007). The Cronbach’s α coefficient was 0.85.

Job satisfaction. As in Study 1, the 20-item short form of the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire(MSQ) was used to assess employee satisfaction. Cronbach’s α coefficient was found to be 0.89.

BFI. As in Study 1, employee’s personality traits were measured with the 44-item BFI developed byJohn, Donahue, and Kentle (1991). Cronbach’s α coefficients for each personality trait was found to





be satisfactory (α = 0.76 for extroversion; α = − 0.79 for conscientiousness; α = 0.70 for agreeable-ness; α = 0.76 for neuroticism; α = 0.80 for openness to experience.

ProcedureAll the data were collected and administered on site during work time. Questionnaires were distributedto participants on convenience method, meaning that only academics who were in their offices whenthe questionnaires were distributed took part in the study. When the aim of the study was introduced,confidentiality and anonymity were assured, and informed consent was obtained from all participants.No incentives were offered. Out of the 450 questionnaires distributed, 348 questionnaires werereturned, for a response rate of 77.3%.As the data for Study 2 were collected from a single source, we again performed Harman’s single-

factor test, examining the unrotated factor solution to determine the number of factors that accountedfor the variance in the variables (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Principal component analysis produced ninefactors, with the first factor explaining 27.8% of the variances. This result gives confidence that nosingle factor accounted for a majority of the covariance and no general factor was apparent, suggestingthat common method variance is not a serious issue in this study (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). As inStudy 1, we made common method factor model test to verify the results of Harman’s single factortest. The addition of common method factor to the measurement model deteoriated the model fit(Δχ2 [df = 63] = 1,365.3; p< .05). Except for one job satisfaction item, all of the standardized factorloadings were found to be significant in both with and without common factor models. These resultstogether with the results of Harman’s single factor test suggested that common method varianceproblem was not a serious factor for this study.

Study 2 results

Preliminary analysisAs in Study 1, we performed a series of CFA to check the existence of discriminant validity and toverify whether items were able to measure the constructs that they had been supposed to measure.Normality and outlier analyses did not reveal any problems. After this initial data screening, wecompared four measurement models listed in Table 4. All of the study variables were assumed to reflectindependent constructs in the eight-factor model. In the four-factor model, five personality factorswere combined into one factor; the remaining variables were assumed to be independent factors. In thesecond-factor model, five personality factors and other three variables (i.e., job satisfaction and per-ceived transformational leadership) were assumed to measure two independent factors and lastly inthe one-factor model, all variables were bound into one overall factor.

TABLE 4. COMPARISON OF MEASUREMENT MODELS FOR MAIN VARIABLES IN STUDY 2

Models Factors χ2/df CFI RMSEA AIC

8 factor PTL, JS, Emp, Ext, Cons, Agr, Ne, OE 2.18 0.901 0.06 10,122.914 factor PTL, JS, Emp, Ext+Cons+Agr+Ne+OE 2.75 0.707 0.07 12,684.572 factor PTL+ JS+Emp, Ext+Cons+Agr+Ne+OE 3.12 0.71 0.08 14,312.001 factor PTL+ JS +Emp+ Ext +Cons+Agr+Ne+OE 3.44 0.61 0.09 15,769.04

Note. Agr = agreeableness; AIC = Akaike information criterion; CFI = comparative fit index; Cons = conscientiousness;Emp = empowerment; Ext = extroversion; JS = job satisfaction; Ne = neuroticism; OE = openness to Experience; PTL =perceived transformational leadership; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.





As it can be seen from model fit indices in Table 4, four-, two- and one-factor models exhibitedpoorer fit than the eight-factor model. Comparison of alternative models with the Akaike informationcriterion again supported the superiority of seven-factor model (Akaike information criterion of seven-factor model was found to be smaller in seven-factor model compared with alternative models).Comparison of different measurement models revealed that the variance among different variableswas not same, suggesting the existence of discriminant validity among study variables.The closer examination of modification indices and standardized factor loadings of eight-factor model

suggested the existence of some problems. The standardized factor loading of one job satisfaction item(i.e., item 8) was lower than the threshold value of 0.40 and some error covariance terms were found tobe correlated. Considering the independency of factors principle, we decided to add error covarianceterms between some items (i.e., between perceived transformational leadership items between 1 and 2and between transformational leadership items between 13 and 14). After the modifications, the modelimproved and supported a acceptable fit (χ2 [4,448] = 9,605.36; p< .001; χ2/df = 2.16; goodnessof fit index (GFI) = 0.90; confirmatory fit index (CFI) = 0.89; and root mean square error approx-imation (RMSEA) = 0.06). Since all of the factor loadings were found to be significant, the scores ofeach study variable were calculated by taking the average of the scale items. However, as indicated before,one job satisfaction item was not taken into consideration when calculation job satisfaction scores ofemployees. As in Study 1, the composite score for openness to experience was not calculated.

Descriptive statistics. Means, standard deviations and intercorrelations among the variables arepresented in Table 5. The correlations between variables provide initial support for our hypotheses,such that perceived transformational leadership is positively correlated with job satisfaction (r = 0.530,p< .01) and with psychological empowerment (r = 0.153, p< .01). Moreover, psychologicalempowerment is positively correlated with job satisfaction (r = 0.459, p< .01). As the demographicvariables did not significantly correlate with the outcome variable of job satisfaction, we rendered themas control variables.

Hypotheses testing for the mediating effect of psychological empowermentThe hypothesized relationships were tested by Hayes and Preacher’s (2014) mediation procedure. Theanalysis was run for job satisfaction as the dependent variable, perceived transformational leadership asthe independent variable and psychological empowerment as the mediator. Table 6 shows theβ coefficients for the direct and indirect effects and bootstrap confidence intervals.As Table 6 shows, a significant positive association is observed between employee perceptions of

transformational leadership and job satisfaction (β = 0.35, p< .05), supporting Hypothesis 1.Moreover, a significant indirect effect of transformational leadership perceptions on followers’ jobsatisfaction through psychological empowerment was also observed (β = 0.06, 95% bootstrap con-fidence interval = 0.03–0.09; R2 effect size = 0.09), providing support for Hypothesis 5. The Sobeltest was also significant (z = 3.95, p< .01), which illustrates that psychological empowerment acts as amediator between perceived transformational leadership and job satisfaction. That is, when employeesperceive their leader as transformational, they feel more psychologically empowered, which increasestheir job satisfaction levels.Using the data collected about personality traits, we combined the moderation model tested in

Study 1 and mediation model tested in Study 2. Accordingly, we tested the moderating effect ofpersonality traits on the mediated model in which empowerment mediates the relationship betweenperceived transformational leadership and job satisfaction. Using the model 59 specified in the Processmacro (Hayes, 2013), we tested whether personality traits moderate the relationship between(1) transformational leadership and psychological empowerment; (2) psychological empowerment and





TABLE 5. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS, α COEFFICIENTS AND CORRELATIONS AMONG STUDY 2 VARIABLES

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Gender – –2. Age 37.80 4.12 −0.14** –3. Job tenure 5.70 0.91 −0.21** 0.54** –4. Tenure with manager 3.10 0.50 −0.13* 0.43** 0.69** –5. PTL 3.57 0.79 −0.03 0.01 −0.09 −0.05 (0.93)6. PE 4.01 0.61 0.13* 0.12* 0.13* 0.14* 0.24** (0.85)7. Ext 3.55 0.70 −0.08 0.01 0.03 −0.02 0.13* 0.30** (0.76)8. Cons 3.10 0.70 −0.05 −0.06 −0.05 −0.03 0.12* 0.37** 0.36** (0.79)9. Agr 3.90 0.56 −0.07 0.01 −0.01 0.03 0.17** 0.29** 0.30** 0.52** (0.70)10. Ne 2.55 0.72 −0.11* −0.06 0.07 −0.03 −0.08 −0.26** −0.29** −0.36** −0.45** (0.76)11. JS 3.70 0.62 −0.02 0.13 0.03 0.12 0.53** 0.46** 0.12* 0.21** 0.19** −0.12* (0.89)

Note. N = 348.Gender is coded as 0 = woman, 1 = man.Cronbach’s α coefficients are in parentheses in the diagonal.Agr = agreeableness; Cons = Conscientiousness; Ext = extroversion; JS = job satisfaction; Ne = Neuroticism; PE = psychological empowerment; PTL = perceivedtransformational leadership.*p< .05, **p< .001.

Perceivedtransform

ationalleadership,

jobsatisfaction

JOURNALOFMANAGEMEN

T&

ORGANIZA

TION

17

http:/ww

w.cam

bridge.org/core/terms. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/jm

o.2016.59D

ownloaded from

http:/ww

w.cam

bridge.org/core. Hacettepe U

niversitesi, on 03 Jan 2017 at 11:48:41, subject to the Cambridge Core term

s of use, available at


job satisfaction; and (3) perceived transformational leadership and job satisfaction. Except con-scientiousness, none of the personality variables moderated the aforementioned relations. The mod-erating effect of conscientiousness on the linkage between perceived transformational leadership andjob satisfaction was found to be significant (β = 0.21; t = 2.20; p = .04). This finding seems to be inline with the findings obtained in Study 1 such that perceived transformational leadership seems tohave stronger positive relationships with job satisfaction among employees high in conscientiousness.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The purpose of this research is to enhance the understanding of the link between perceived trans-formational leadership and job satisfaction by focussing on followers’ personality traits and followers’psychological empowerment. Our findings concerning both studies suggest three main conclusions.First, consistent with previous studies (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990; Piccolo &Colquitt, 2006; Braun et al., 2013), we find a positive direct (Study 1) and indirect association(Study 2) between perceived transformational leadership and job satisfaction. That is, perceivedtransformational leadership serves as an informative framework in examining the predictors of jobsatisfaction. This finding suggests that when employees regard their leaders as more transformationalthey become more satisfied with their jobs. Since transformational leaders motivate their followers toperform beyond expectations (Keegan & Hartog, 2004) and transmit a sense of mission andintellectual stimulation (Bass, 1985) it seems reasonable that perceived transformational leadershipcould intrinsically foster more job satisfaction.Second, as an important contribution to the literature, we tested the moderating roles of followers’

personality traits on the relationship between perceived transformational leadership and job satisfaction by

TABLE 6. RESULTS OF THE MEDIATION ANALYSIS

Model summary (DV = PE) R2 F p

0.05 20.67 0Variables Coefficient SE t pPTL 0.18** 0.04 4.54 0

Model summary (DV = JS) R2 F p

0.40 114.63 0Variables Coefficient SE t pPE 0.36** 0.04 8.22 0PTL 0.35** 0.03 10.39 0

Direct effect of PTL on JS Effect SE t p

0.35** 0.03 10.39 0

Indirect effect through mediator Effect Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI

0.07* 0.02 0.04 0.09

Note. N = 348.DV = dependent variable; JS = job satisfaction; PE = psychological empowerment; PTL = perceived transformationalleadership; LLCI = lower limit of confidence interval; ULCI = upper limit of confidence interval.*p< .05, **p< .00.





focussing on a follower-centred perspective. The results of Study 1 provide evidence for the moderatingeffects of conscientiousness on the perceived transformational leadership–job satisfaction linkage. That is,perceived transformational leadership consistently yields stronger positive relationships with job satis-faction among employees high in conscientiousness compared with employees low in conscientiousness.This finding is partly in line with researchers (Howell, Dorfman, & Kerr, 1986; Shamir, House, &Arthur, 1993; Epitropaki & Martin, 2005) who argue that followers’ personality traits may moderate therelationship between TL behaviours and organizational outcomes. A possible explanation for themoderating effect of conscientiousness on the perceived TL-job satisfaction linkage might be attributed tospecific forms of self-fulfilling prophecies, such as the Pygmalion and Galatea effects. ‘The Pygmalioneffect is a type of self-fulfilling prophecy in which raising manager expectations regarding subordinateperformance boosts subordinate performance’ (Eden, 1992: 271). That is, when leaders communicatehigh expectations to their followers, the followers may expect high expectations from themselves andperform much better. The Galatea effect is a self-driven phenomenon where individuals’ own opinionsabout their abilities and self-worth ideas influence their performance. It assumes that when followersexpect more of themselves, these expectations will in turn enhance their performance (Eden, 1992). In thePygmalion effect, followers work towards meeting the expectations that are set by their leaders, whereas inthe Galatea effect an individual sets expectations for himself or herself and strives to live up to them. Asindividuals who are high in conscientiousness have a tendency to attain more challenging goals that are setby leaders, it seems reasonable that Pygmalion effect might increase the strength of the relationshipbetween perceived TL and job satisfaction specifically for conscientious followers.High conscientious followers exhibit higher levels of sustained effort, which in turn may lead them

to perform better. When such followers perceive their leaders’ behaviours as transformational, becauseof the Galatea effect, their expectations of themselves may increase, they may perform better and at theend feel relatively higher job satisfaction. However, one should be cautious about this kind ofinference, as our study did not assess but merely suggests possible Galatea and Pygmalion effects.Contrary to our initial expectations, we failed to find any significant moderating effects of

extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism on the relationship between perceived transformationalleadership and job satisfaction. To author’s knowledge, as there has been no research exploring thepossible moderating effects of personality traits on the stated relationship, we believe that this finding isan important contribution to the literature. Alternatively, apart from followers’ personality traits, otherfactors might interact with perceived transformational leadership in its relationship with job satisfac-tion. In this respect, individuals’ cultural value dimensions might be an intriguing factor. Some scholarsargue that followers’ responses to transformational leadership and how transformational leadershipaffects work-related attitudes may not be consistent across cultures (Bass 1997; Ergeneli, Gohar, &Temirbekova, 2007). There exists evidence that collectivistic culture orientations influence perceivedtransformational leadership and work-related outcomes (Walumbwa & Lawler, 2003). Thus, thecollectivistic culture of Turkish followers (Hofstede, 1980) might lead them to expect their leaders toexhibit transformational leadership behaviours (Bass, 1995), and such followers might readily respondto transformational leadership practices (Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009). So, apart from personalitycharacteristics, one might argue that cultural value orientations might cause followers to perceive theirmanagers as more or less transformational.Although not directly hypothesized, concerning the direct effects of personality traits on job satis-

faction, we found a positive relationship for conscientiousness and a negative relationship for neuro-ticism in line with other studies made in Turkey (Camgoz & Karapinar, 2011; Gümüşsoy, 2016).More specifically, congruent with prior research, our findings demonstrate that individuals who arehigh in conscientiousness report higher levels of job satisfaction (Winkelmann & Winkelmann, 2008;Templer, 2012), whereas individuals who are high in neuroticism report lower levels of job satisfaction(Connolly & Viswesvaran, 2000; Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002; Kim & Chung, 2014).





The third conclusion of this research pertains to the findings of Study 2. In exploring the ‘black box’ ofhow perceived transformational leadership influences job satisfaction (Avolio et al., 2004), we demonstratethat feelings of psychological empowerment mediate the relationship between perceived transformationalleadership and job satisfaction. Based on the current sample of engineering academics, the results suggestthat psychological empowerment partially mediates the relationship between perceived transformationalleadership and job satisfaction. The findings imply that psychological empowerment is an importantmechanism through which perceived transformational leadership exerts its effect on job satisfaction.That is, when followers perceive their leader as more transformational, they feel more psychologicallyempowered, which in turn contributes to increased levels of job satisfaction. This finding provides supportto Bass’s (1999) argument that transformational leadership may act through psychological empowermentin influencing work outcomes. Further, our findings confirm previous research (Fuller, Morrison, Jones,Bridger, & Brown, 1999; Hechanova, Alampay, & Franco, 2006; Wang & Lee, 2009) and also thestudies made in Turkey (Gürbüz, 2009; Bitmiş & Ergeneli, 2011; Pelit, Öztürk, & Arslantürk, 2011)demonstrating that empowered followers are likely to have higher levels of job satisfaction.

Limitations and future research

This study is not without its limitations. The first concerns the use of a cross-sectional design, whichdoes not allow for an assessment of causality. Further research using longitudinal designs might infer thecausality of the relationships studied here. Second, this paper relies on data collected fromacademics and white-collar employees working in R&D at various information technology companiestherefore participants are highly educated. It is possible that differences emanating from occupationalclassification (white/blue collar) and/or organizational culture or even national culture might affect theresults. Especially, the unique characteristics of the academic sample (i.e., Study 2) need special con-sideration. The results reported in Study 2 might be affected by the fact that academics have a lot ofautonomy in scheduling and handling their work, and often do not identify their supervisor as a specificleader. Therefore, it is noteworthy to mention that a more diverse sample may provide a different patternor at least magnitude of results regarding the mediating role of empowerment. Replicating the study witha more heterogeneous sample in different organizations and cultures might increase the generalizability offuture research. Third, as the data were collected from a single source (i.e., followers), there might be apotential threat for common method variance. Although several remedies were taken to reduce it (bothHarman’s test and CFA indicated the existence of separate constructs), future studies could validate self-reported data on transformational leadership with other sources, such as employee–leader dyads. Fourth,this study utilizes a perceived transformational leadership paradigm from the follower perspective;another avenue for research could consider the assumed similarity theory (Watson, Hubbard, & Wiese,2000), which argues the importance of the perceived similarity between the follower and the leader.Schyns and Felfe (2006) found that followers with similar characteristics to transformational leadershipleaders perceive more transformational leadership behaviours in their leaders. Therefore, leaders’personalities could also be included into the model to test the assumed similarity effect and then exploreits potential moderating effect on the relationship between transformational leadership and jobsatisfaction. Last but not least, further research might also explore other situational moderators(i.e., organizational climate, feedback environment) and their relationships with other outcome variables,such as organizational commitment.

Practical implications

There are several practical implications of the current research. In a broad sense, perceived transfor-mational leadership is found to be positively associated with job satisfaction. Prior research has





demonstrated that transformational leadership behaviours can be learned (Parry & Sinha, 2005;Nielsen, Hrivnak, & Shaw, 2009), and thus encouraging managers to adopt a transformational style inarticulating a vision, inspiring employees, recognizing employees’ needs and promoting creativitywould likely then result in higher levels of job satisfaction.The moderating role of followers’ conscientiousness on the relationship between perceived

transformational leadership and job satisfaction is the core finding of Study 1. That is, followershigh in conscientiousness appraise their leaders as more transformational than those low in con-scientiousness, and the former effect is more likely to increase job satisfaction. What implications dothese findings hold for managers? For one, managers should acknowledge that to increase jobsatisfaction levels, emerging as and remaining an effective transformational leadership leader does notdepend solely on their own behaviour but also on their followers’ personalities (Felfe & Schyns, 2010).That is, when managers express transformational leadership behaviours, it is important to understandthat the same behaviour is interpreted differently among employees. Followers high in con-scientiousness perceive higher transformational leadership characteristics than their counterparts, andthis manifests in higher job satisfaction. Understanding the personality differences of their followerswould appear to be a good way for managers to analyse and understand follower feedback, and thenbehave accordingly. Managers should not hesitate to discuss evaluations of their leadership practiceswith their followers; in this way, they can gain a better understanding of their followers’ perceptions.Nevertheless, managers should likely expect more support and commitment from conscientiousfollowers.The mediating role of followers’ psychological empowerment between perceived transformational

leadership and job satisfaction is the core finding of Study 2. That is, by creating a greater sense ofempowerment, one can inspire, albeit indirectly, higher levels of job satisfaction. Managers who wishto enhance their followers’ job satisfaction should be aware and capable of increasing followers’psychological empowerment by fostering goal internalization, creating a sense of choice and impact,and making followers feel that they have some choice in their work lives. Moreover, how managersdemonstrate transformational types of leadership behaviours highly affects psychological empowermentfeelings. For instance, by helping employees to become more innovative and creative, managers mayengender feelings of competence. Additionally, by creating opportunities for followers to make changesin their own work, managers may increase employees’ feelings of impact and choice (Rafferty &Griffin, 2004). Further, managers could be more sensitive to followers’ developmental needs andsupport and coach their followers, which may foster self-determination and impact, thereby result inmore intrinsic job satisfaction.

Conclusion

The aim of this paper is to investigate the moderating effects of personality traits (i.e., extraversion,conscientiousness, agreeableness and neuroticism) and the mediating effect of psychological empow-erment on the relationship between perceived transformational leadership and job satisfaction.Although much progress has been made in how perceived transformation leadership affects employees’attitudes towards their job, studies addressing the moderating and mediating effects on transforma-tional leader–follower attitudes linkage are relatively rare. Understanding the moderating effects offollowers’ personality traits may enhance the understanding of the dispositional predictors of jobsatisfaction, which would be helpful for devising proper employee selection, training and developmentprograms. Furthermore, by demonstrating the key role of empowerment on perceived transformationalleadership and job satisfaction, this study hopefully draws attention to the positive effects of delegationand participative management.





ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.All authors have read and approved the paper and have met the criteria for authorship listed above.

Conflicts of Interest

None.

ReferencesAvolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building vital forces in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional

leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,72, 441–462.

Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and organizational commitment:Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of OrganizationalBehaviour, 25, 951–968.

Awamleh, R., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Perceptions of leader charisma and effectiveness: The effect of vision content,delivery, and organizational performance. Leadership Quarterly, 10(3), 345–373.

Aycan, Z. (2001). Human resource management in Turkey-current issues and future challenges. International Journal ofManpower, 22(3), 252–260.

Aycan, Z., & Kanungo, R. N. (2000). Topolumsal kültürün kurumsal kültür ve insan kaynakları uygulamalari üzerineetkileri [Effects of social culture on organizational culture and human resources practices]. Management, Leadership,and Human Resources Practices in Turkey. Istanbul, Turkey: DETAM.

Aycan, Z., & Fikret-Pasa, S. (2003). Career choices, job selection criteria, and leadership preferences in a transitionalnation: The case of Turkey. Journal of Career Development, 30(2), 129–144.

Aycan, Z., Kanungo, R. N., Mendonca, M., Yu, K., Deller, J., Stahl, G., & Khursid, A. (2000). Impact of culture on humanresource management practices: A ten country comparison. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49(1), 192–220.

Bartram, T., & Casimir, G. (2006). The relationship between leadership and follower in-role performance and satis-faction with the leader. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 28(1), 4–19.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The Free Press.Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press.Bass, B. M. (1995). Comment: Transformational leadership looking at other possible antecedents and consequences.

Journal of Management Inquiry, 4(3), 293–298.Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional–transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national

boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2), 130–139.Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work

and Organizational Psychology, 8, 9–32.Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. The International Journal of

Public Administration, 17(3-4), 541–554.Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire: Manual leader form, rater, and scoring key for

MLQ (Form 5x-Short). Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.Bilgic, R. (1998). The relationship between job satisfaction and personal characteristics of Turkish workers. The Journal

of Psychology, 132(5), 549–557.Bitmiş, M. G., & Ergeneli, A. (2011). Contingency approach to strategic management: A test of the mediating effect of

leader member exchange on the relationship between psychological empowerment and job satisfaction in21st century workplace. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24, 1143–1153.

Bodla, M. A., & Hussain, G. (2010). Followers’ characteristics and leadership styles: An empirical fit among employeesof Pakistan. Journal of US-China Public Administration, 7(6), 73–81.

Bogler, R. (2001). The influence of leadership style on teacher job satisfaction. Educational Administration Quarterly,37(5), 662–683.





Bono, J. E., Hooper, A. C., & Yoon, D. J. (2012). Impact of rater personality on transformational and transactionalleadership ratings. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 132–145.

Braun, S., Peus, C., Weisweiler, S., & Frey, D. (2013). Transformational leadership, job satisfaction, and teamperformance: A multilevel mediation model of trust. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 270–283.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. (1995). Further assessments of Bass’s (1985) conceptualization of transactional

and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 468–478.Camgoz, S. M., & Karapinar, P. B. (2011). Managing job satisfaction: The mediating effect of procedural fairness.

International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(8), 234–243.Castro, B. C., Villegas, P. M. M., & Casillas, B. J. C. (2008). Transformational leadership and followers’ attitudes: The

mediating role of psychological empowerment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(10),1842–1863.

Christiansen, N., Sliter, M., & Frost, C. T. (2014). What employees dislike about their jobs: Relationship betweenpersonality-based fit and work satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 71, 25–29.

Cicero, L., & Pierro, A. (2007). Charismatic leadership and organizational outcomes: The mediating role of employees’work-group identification. Internatio

perceptions of transformational leadership and job ...yoksis.bilkent.edu.tr/pdf/files/12457.pdf ·...

Documents